BACKGROUND: A novel method to quantify dyssynchrony has been developed using phase analysis of gated single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion imaging. We report on the effect of variability in image reconstruction on the phase analysis results (repeatability) and on the interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility of the technique. METHODS: Phase standard deviation (SD) and bandwidth are phase indices that quantify dyssynchrony. To evaluate repeatability, raw data sets were processed twice in 50 patients with left ventricular dysfunction and 50 normal controls. To determine the optimal processing method, two replicated phase analysis results were obtained using automated and manual base parameter placement. Reproducibility of the phase analysis was determined using the data from 20 patients. RESULTS: In normal controls, manual base parameter placement improves repeatability of the phase analysis as measured by the mean absolute difference between two reads for phase SD (12.0 degrees vs. 1.2 degrees , P<0.0001) and bandwidth (33.7 degrees vs. 3.6 degrees , P<0.0001). Repeatability is better for normal controls than for patients with left ventricular dysfunction for phase SD (1.2 degrees vs. 6.0 degrees , P<0.0001) and bandwidth (3.6 degrees vs. 26.5 degrees , P<0.0001). Reproducibility of the phase analysis is high as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficients for phase SD and bandwidth of 0.99 and 0.99 for the interobserver comparisons and 1.00 and 1.00 for the intraobserver comparisons. CONCLUSION: A novel method to quantify dyssynchrony has been developed using gated single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion imaging. Manual base parameter placement reduces the effect that variability in image reconstruction has on phase analysis. A high degree of reproducibility of phase analysis is observed.
BACKGROUND: A novel method to quantify dyssynchrony has been developed using phase analysis of gated single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion imaging. We report on the effect of variability in image reconstruction on the phase analysis results (repeatability) and on the interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility of the technique. METHODS: Phase standard deviation (SD) and bandwidth are phase indices that quantify dyssynchrony. To evaluate repeatability, raw data sets were processed twice in 50 patients with left ventricular dysfunction and 50 normal controls. To determine the optimal processing method, two replicated phase analysis results were obtained using automated and manual base parameter placement. Reproducibility of the phase analysis was determined using the data from 20 patients. RESULTS: In normal controls, manual base parameter placement improves repeatability of the phase analysis as measured by the mean absolute difference between two reads for phase SD (12.0 degrees vs. 1.2 degrees , P<0.0001) and bandwidth (33.7 degrees vs. 3.6 degrees , P<0.0001). Repeatability is better for normal controls than for patients with left ventricular dysfunction for phase SD (1.2 degrees vs. 6.0 degrees , P<0.0001) and bandwidth (3.6 degrees vs. 26.5 degrees , P<0.0001). Reproducibility of the phase analysis is high as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficients for phase SD and bandwidth of 0.99 and 0.99 for the interobserver comparisons and 1.00 and 1.00 for the intraobserver comparisons. CONCLUSION: A novel method to quantify dyssynchrony has been developed using gated single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion imaging. Manual base parameter placement reduces the effect that variability in image reconstruction has on phase analysis. A high degree of reproducibility of phase analysis is observed.
Authors: S Garrigue; S Reuter; J N Labeque; P Jais; M Hocini; D C Shah; M Haissaguerre; J Clementy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: F McAlister; J Ezekowitz; N Wiebe; B Rowe; C Spooner; E Crumley; L Hartling; P Kaul; G Nichol; T Klassen Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2004-11
Authors: Kaoru Dohi; Matthew S Suffoletto; David Schwartzman; Leonard Ganz; Michael R Pinsky; John Gorcsan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Maria Vittoria Pitzalis; Massimo Iacoviello; Roberta Romito; Pietro Guida; Elisabetta De Tommasi; Giovanni Luzzi; Matteo Anaclerio; Cinzia Forleo; Paolo Rizzon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark A Trimble; Salvador Borges-Neto; Stuart Smallheiser; Ji Chen; Emily F Honeycutt; Linda K Shaw; Jaekyeong Heo; Robert A Pagnanelli; E Lindsey Tauxe; Ernest V Garcia; Fabio Esteves; Frank Seghatol-Eslami; G Neal Kay; Ami E Iskandrian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-04-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Wael AlJaroudi; Wael A Jaber; Richard A Grimm; Thomas Marwick; Manuel D Cerqueira Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ji Chen; Maureen M Henneman; Mark A Trimble; Jeroen J Bax; Salvador Borges-Neto; Ami E Iskandrian; Kenneth J Nichols; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Allen E Atchley; Dalane W Kitzman; David J Whellan; Ami E Iskandrian; Stephen J Ellis; Robert A Pagnanelli; Andrew Kao; Khaled Abdul-Nour; Christopher M O'Connor; Greg Ewald; William E Kraus; Salvador Borges-Neto Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.749